light rail in the triangle (Charlotte, Raleigh: apartments, condo, employment)
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, CaryThe Triangle Area
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have mentioned this before, but I would be far more in favor in giving incentives to business for increasing telecommuting. We have the technology, and it would be substantially cheaper than building light rail, with an added benefit of being able to work from home for a lot more people. This would also not be another avenue of perpetual revenue needed by the government to sustain it. We can avoid a lot of traffic if another 20-30% of the population did not have to drive to an office every day locally. We can also incentivize to locate more business to the denser areas instead of having one central point with the majority of our jobs. There are plenty of ideas to run through before spending billions of dollars on trains. Even more busses, which are a lot more flexible in where they can get to. I am not anti-train, but we are not in a good financial position to start acquiring new multi-billion dollar toys. Without tearing down neighborhoods and building skyrise buildings, our downtowns are already dense with development as it is. Maybe a better idea would be to close the gates and keep RDU our little secret lol.
The goal is to have transit to reduce car trips AND to allow denser development in urban areas, which means that more people might CHOOSE FREELY to live closer to where they work and then homebuilders would CHOOSE FREELY to not build out as many subdivisions in the midst of forested, pristine, natural areas. People would be able to CHOOSE FREELY to live in suburban and exurban environments if they wanted to. However, you cannot have higher density in urban areas to allow people to FREELY CHOOSE to live there without transit to reduce road density.
No one is being FORCED to move into Brooklyn, Portland, Northern Va./Bethesda/Silver Spring. However all of these cities have seen big resurgences and renewals because lots of people CHOOSE to live in areas where transit exist. Employers FREELY CHOOSE to locate offices there, too, because lots of smart people want to live in denser, urban areas.
So what's your alternative? When we extend new highways to former farming towns, are we "preserving freedom?" When that prices out people who've lived there for years from their farms, is that "preserving freedom?" And why do we allow the public dole to subsidize these new roads? The subdivision developer does not pay to extend the freeway to them; the current residents pay in impacted lifestyle, absorbed state transportation dollars, etc. These new roads do NOT benefit all, they benefit developers and new residents at the cost of worse traffic and air for us all. Oh, and without transit, there is a shortage of new urban development, which means many are FORCED to live in more suburban areas than might want to.
BCR,
Are you saying that affordability increases and property values decrease in urban areas when population increases in density, and land is lost to provide transit options?
The goal is to have transit to reduce car trips AND to allow denser development in urban areas, which means that more people might CHOOSE FREELY to live closer to where they work and then homebuilders would CHOOSE FREELY to not build out as many subdivisions in the midst of forested, pristine, natural areas. People would be able to CHOOSE FREELY to live in suburban and exurban environments if they wanted to. However, you cannot have higher density in urban areas to allow people to FREELY CHOOSE to live there without transit to reduce road density.
No one is being FORCED to move into Brooklyn, Portland, Northern Va./Bethesda/Silver Spring. However all of these cities have seen big resurgences and renewals because lots of people CHOOSE to live in areas where transit exist. Employers FREELY CHOOSE to locate offices there, too, because lots of smart people want to live in denser, urban areas.
So what's your alternative? When we extend new highways to former farming towns, are we "preserving freedom?" When that prices out people who've lived there for years from their farms, is that "preserving freedom?" And why do we allow the public dole to subsidize these new roads? The subdivision developer does not pay to extend the freeway to them; the current residents pay in impacted lifestyle, absorbed state transportation dollars, etc. These new roads do NOT benefit all, they benefit developers and new residents at the cost of worse traffic and air for us all. Oh, and without transit, there is a shortage of new urban development, which means many are FORCED to live in more suburban areas than might want to.
As long as I am free to CHOOSE to not pay for the light rail system, just like I am free to CHOOSE to not pay for the new section of 540, then I am fine with it. I just don't want to be forced to pay for something that I think is ridiculous.
As long as I am free to CHOOSE to not pay for the light rail system, just like I am free to CHOOSE to not pay for the new section of 540, then I am fine with it. I just don't want to be forced to pay for something that I think is ridiculous.
Welp, too bad you can't CHOOOSE to support the roads in the eastern or western part of the state. Or CHOOOOOSE anything else. It isn't my fault you can't see the trees because of the forest.
I have mentioned this before, but I would be far more in favor in giving incentives to business for increasing telecommuting. We have the technology, and it would be substantially cheaper than building light rail, with an added benefit of being able to work from home for a lot more people. This would also not be another avenue of perpetual revenue needed by the government to sustain it. We can avoid a lot of traffic if another 20-30% of the population did not have to drive to an office every day locally. We can also incentivize to locate more business to the denser areas instead of having one central point with the majority of our jobs. There are plenty of ideas to run through before spending billions of dollars on trains. Even more busses, which are a lot more flexible in where they can get to. I am not anti-train, but we are not in a good financial position to start acquiring new multi-billion dollar toys. Without tearing down neighborhoods and building skyrise buildings, our downtowns are already dense with development as it is. Maybe a better idea would be to close the gates and keep RDU our little secret lol.
Oh yes, that is smart. We don't need any new businesses to relocate here. Might as well consider us Ohio at that point.
Welp, too bad you can't CHOOOSE to support the roads in the eastern or western part of the state. Or CHOOOOOSE anything else. It isn't my fault you can't see the trees because of the forest.
What I can see is all the cities in the U.S. that have light rail also have horrific traffic issues. Light rail does not eliminate traffic issues. The Triangle does not have a traffic issue. Traffic here is extremely manageable and there is no need for light rail. I travel I-40 every day of the work week and it's no problem at all. The comparison of light rail to the tolled section of 540 is valid. Different segments of the population want everyone to pay for one and users to pay for the other. I say pay for what you use and leave my pocketbook alone.
As long as I am free to CHOOSE to not pay for the light rail system, just like I am free to CHOOSE to not pay for the new section of 540, then I am fine with it. I just don't want to be forced to pay for something that I think is ridiculous.
Wrong. The NC General Assembly agreed to spend $25 million of general fund revenues (i.e., your tax dollars) a year, for the next 30 years, to pay for NC 540. That is in addition to toll revenues.
The western/southern section of NC 540 would not have been built until the 2030 timeframe without tolls. All the tolls are doing are accelerating the development timeframe.
Why am I paying for a road I don't use? I live in walking distance to my job. I do not commute in from long distances and use I-540 regularly. Of course, this is silly -- I pay for it because not everyone can live or wants to live where I do, and if they can't commute in to their job, then the job doesn't attract the best employees and we lose economic competitiveness.
But taxpayers subsidize roads, even toll roads, all the time.
BCR,
Are you saying that affordability increases and property values decrease in urban areas when population increases in density, and land is lost to provide transit options?
Absolutely not. Of course the development that transit brings in increases property values and can raise prices. But there are mitigating factors:
First, even if rents and housing prices rise in ways that affect lower-income residents and employees, the cost of maintaining a vehicle is more than folks on minimum wage can afford. Better transit can save a household thousands of dollars a year in transportation costs, outweighing the cost of gentrification.
Second, people who live in desirable parts of urban areas expect to pay more for their housing. For all the anti-Durham snark and "OMIGOD don't move your kids to Durham you must move to Wake Forest or Clayton with your DH/DD/DWhatevers," the property values in desirable neighborhoods central Durham, Raleigh and Chapel Hill are well beyond the prices found almost anywhere in F-V, HS, Clayton, etc. One makes a choice on how central or distal they want to live. On the other hand: folks in rural areas -- those areas that have not yet been impacted by development -- often want to be outside a city, and love where they live, and don't want to be forced out by suburbanization and development.
IOW: The loss of affordability is much more devastating to a Mebane or Selma or Creedmoor, I suspect, than it is to urban areas.
----
By the way, the John Locke Foundation -- so prominent now in the papers with their anti-transit David Hargett tripe -- tried to block the transit tax in CLT a decade ago; tried to repeal it a couple of years back. Didn't work -- the tax was endorsed overwhelmingly in Charlotte. Pat McCrory, possibly our next governor, is as big a transit backer as you get in a GOP type these days. And take one look at the good-ol' free market development taking place along the South Blvd line in Charlotte; better still, look at the ridership numbers, well ahead of projections.
People DO want to ride these systems. Businesses support these systems. And communities that don't have them are at a disadvantage for attracting economic development and jobs.
People DO want to ride these systems. Businesses support these systems. And communities that don't have them are at a disadvantage for attracting economic development and jobs.
Very few do. The vast majority will not. This is a suburban area and no amount of effort will transform it into an urban oasis. People here like living in suburbs and love their SUV's. They won't park them to ride the rail and the tax payers will be left supporting an under utilized system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
